Goa Children's Act| "Child Abuse" Includes Both Physical & Psychological Maltreatment; Need Not Be Habitual: Bombay High Court

The Bench highlighted that the "habitual or not" qualifier in the statute allows for a solitary incident to constitute abuse if it involves cruelty or deliberate ill-treatment. The Court noted that the inherent jurisdiction to interfere with criminal proceedings is higher than in appellate reviews and should not be exercised when the record prima facie demonstrates an intention to cause psychological harm alongside physical injury.

Justice Ashish S. Chavan observed, “…it is clear that physical abuse, psychological abuse, cruelty and maltreatment of a child come within the scope of the definition of Section 2(m). It is also evident that it is not necessary that the maltreatment envisaged in the aforesaid provision is habitual. On facts, the allegations as narrated aforesaid prima facie make out a case of physical and psychological abuse. The statement of the victim is corroborated by the statement of an eyewitness, a friend of the mother of the victim, who has also seen the incident and can corroborate the allegations. Thus, the offence defined by Section 2(m) and penalised by Section 8(2) of the said Act is prima facie made out from a holistic reading of the chargesheet”.

Advocate Nigel da Costa Frias appeared for the petitioner and Somnath Karpe, Additional Public Prosecutor appeared for the respondent.

The case originated from an incident on November 11, 2023, at a beach in Majorda, where a minor boy was allegedly approached by the petitioners while he was drinking water. According to the victim's statement under Section 164 of the CrPC, Petitioner No. 1 seized him by the collar and punched him near the throat, threatening to "break him" as he had allegedly done to the boy's father. Other petitioners reportedly threatened to break the victim's legs and suffocate him to death, an escalation linked to a pre-existing rivalry over water sports activities.

The petitioners were arraigned for offences under Sections 323 and 506 IPC, alongside Section 8 of the Goa Children’s Act. Following the filing of chargesheet before the Children’s Court at Panaji, the petitioners moved the High Court seeking to quash the proceedings, specifically arguing that the ingredients of child abuse were not satisfied.

The Court distinguished the present case from precedents like Santosh Sahadev Khajnekar v. State of Goa 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1828, where a "simple blow with a school bag" was deemed insufficient to attract the Act. Here, the combination of physical violence, corroborated by a medical certificate, and threats regarding the victim’s life and limb were found to be calculated efforts to create a lasting atmosphere of fear.

“…the allegations clearly demonstrate, prima facie, that the act of verbal and psychological abuse coupled with physical assault was not a solitary incident. The incident itself was not a momentary act during a quarrel. It was neither trivial nor isolated and taking the allegations at face value, at this stage, the alleged incident seems to be aimed at creating psychological fear in the mind of the victim, the physical assault being only the means to create an atmosphere of fear in the mind of the victim”.

The Court rejected the petition, discharging the rule and refusing to interfere with the ongoing criminal proceedings. It clarified that these observations are prima facie and shall not influence the Trial Court's ultimate determination of guilt.

Cause Title: Helcino A. Fernandes & Others v. State and Others (Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-GOA:941)

Appearances:

Petitioners: Nigel da Costa Frias, Kartik Panchal and Savio Mesquita, Advocates.

Respondents: Somnath Karpe, Additional Public Prosecutor, Sonali Gaonkar, Anacleto Viegas, Mohammad Nadaf, Advocatea.

Click here to read/download the Judgment